Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:51:13 -0500 | From | Mark Mielke <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_TINY |
| |
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 07:33:01AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > If gcc regularly generates larger code with -Os the answer is to talk to > > the gcc people, not to avoid using -Os... > It's not that it does regularly, it's that it can, and if it does, it's > not really a gcc bug from what I recall. So I don't think CONFIG_TINY > should prefer -Os over -O2 but instead we should just ask the user what > level of optimization they want. Remember, one of the real important > parts of embedded systems is flexibility.
Not to stretch this point too long, but turning off inlined functions 'can' make code bigger too. It usually doesn't.
I have no problem with the other suggestion that CONFIG_TINY specify a template for a set of build options, but if CONFIG_TINY is used (either as an option, or a template of options) -Os should always be preferred over -O2. Whether the user can still override this or not is a different issue from whether -Os should be preferred over -O2 when CONFIG_TINY is specified.
Or specified more clearly: If the compiler optimization flag is configurable, choosing CONFIG_TINY should default the optimization flag to -Os before it defaults the optimization flag to -O2.
mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |